A S MEHTA AND CO Vs. YOGENDRANATH SACHDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two C.R.Ps. are filed by a common landlord A.S. Mehta and Co., represented by its partners Mr. Devendra Kumar Mehta and 5 others. The petitioners in both R.C.Nos. 288/82 and 289/82 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, filed eviction petitions against two different tenants, one Yogendranath Sachdev, the respondent in R.C.No. 288/82 and another Optical Centre represented by its partner Wajahat Hussain, the respondent in R.C. No. 289/82. In R.C.No. 288/82, P.W. 1 was examined and Exs. P-1 to P-21 were marked and likewise R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. R-l to R-16 were marked and ultimately, the R.C. was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed R.A.No. 171/91 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and the appellate authority had reversed the matter, and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in the said R.C. have filed C.R.P.NO. 5513 of 1998. In R.C.No. 289/82, P.W. 1 was examined and Exs. P-l to P-12 were marked and likewise R.W. 1 was examined and Exs. R-l to R-22 were marked and ultimately, the R.C. was allowed and aggrieved by the same the tenant filed R.A.No. 187/91 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and the same was allowed by the appellate authority and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in the said R.C. filed C.R.P. No. 55124 of 1998.

(2.) As it can be seen even from the orders of the learned Rent Controller, it was recorded at paragraph No. 3 that in view of the pleadings of the respective parties and the evidence adduced by them and the arguments advanced at the Bar, the following points arise for consideration and point No. 1 referred to in the said order is "whether the petition by unregistered firm is maintainable". The appellate Court also had discussed about this aspect at paragraph No. 6 of the order. The revision petitioner being an unregistered firm, had filed these eviction petitions against two different tenants. Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 dealing with the effect of non- registration, reads as follows: 69. Effect of non-registration:-

(3.) Noticing conflict between the decision of Patna High Court in Padam Singh Jain v. M/ s. Chandra Brothers and others and the decision of the Madras High Court in Saifuddin Hussainibhoy Siamwala and others v. The Burma Cycle Trading Co. a learned single Judge of this Court, referred the following question to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, and that is how, the reference is before us: Whether an unregistered firm, despite the bar under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 can maintain an eviction petition under the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960?